Which tradition? 1950's 'Father Knows Best' fantasy or new wife every third child as she dies in childbirth?

Will there be breach of contract clauses for when there's no blood on the sheets, too?

Dear fundies,

Relax, this will not in any way diminish your ability to hate, abuse your wives, stick your dick into anything that moves, commit adultery, do drugs, and basically hate your fellow man.

While still feeling good about yourselves.

Look on the bright side, you will have more to hate, which will make you better "Christians", you should be happy.

So take a deep breath, and relax. You can still rule over your family with an iron and quick fist, snort meth, and fark your aid(M/F)all you want.

It's OK

Love,
baka-san

Tradition?? The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old. Unless they're talking about the other other tradition.

Oh dear FSM, I don't think I can take another gay thread.

Dear Right Wing:

You are all closet homosexuals. That is all.

torch: Tradition?? The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old. Unless they're talking about the other other tradition.

Heh, I did a final paper in history about the history of marriage. These idiots that scream "traditional marriage" have absolutely no idea what they're really referring to.

wyltoknow: Oh dear FSM, I don't think I can take another gay thread.

What are ya, a pussy? Man up, nancy!

PC LOAD LETTER: Dear Right Wing:

You are all closet homosexuals. That is all.

Most of them aren't even in the closet. Some of them are in men's rooms and some of them are on the pulpit.

Who cares about this shiat?

PC LOAD LETTER: Dear Right Wing:

You are all closet homosexuals. That is all.

Yup. Anyone who needs to make damn sure everyone knows they hate everyone who is gay is really just gay themselves and can't admit it.

Dear California Activists,

Stop trying to impose your "morals" on the rest of us. We are in the 21'st century, not the 14th.

Thanks much,
SilentStrider

SilentStrider: Stop trying to impose your "morals" on the rest of us.

Okay, which one of you went and forcibly gay-married SilentStrider?

mediaho: SilentStrider: Stop trying to impose your "morals" on the rest of us.

Okay, which one of you went and forcibly gay-married SilentStrider?

i did.
his swishy cuffs were just asking for it.

Fellow conservatives, DE-REGULATE MARRIAGE.

Jebus, can't we get this damn 'Rapture' thing over with so we can have a little farking relief?!"

No word on how many cows will be legally required per wife bought

Arguments have already been herd.

I didn't think it could get much worse as far stupidity was concerned, but I heard the most ludicrous thing this afternoon. An official from one of these anti-gay marriage groups was a guest on NPR and actually the gall to claim it was an issue of protecting "religious liberties." I guess the concept of "your rights end where another's begin" never occured to the woman or her group. But it was okay! She also claimed to have the Knights of Columbus on her side. That means something... I guess.

Friggin eh... these people are just hellbent on having the government regulate their religions... just say no to nanny-statism.

"People know deep in their hearts it is only for a man and woman," Thomasson said.

Huh.... go figure.
And all this time I thought it was a Legal Institution based on giving a woman everything a man had in this world. Is there really more to it than that?

I swear to God, these "conservatives"think about homosexual activities more than all the normal gay people combined.

“When there is freedom from mechanical conditioning, there is simplicity. The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow - you are not understanding yourself.”

-Bruce Lee

Anything that means I can go to more gay weddings, the better.

Free and good food, wine, beer, cake, but entertaining alterna-religious or judge or whatever doing the marryin'? Celebrating an altogether "f--k you" to the idiots who are losing their dumbass fight every day? Debating buying a large sized metal straining globe thing for tea or something because they have every other kitchen supply known to man?

Heck yea! Way better than a baby shower anyhow.

/would've rather played Wii wtih the boys in the basement

WFern: I didn't think it could get much worse as far stupidity was concerned, but I heard the most ludicrous thing this afternoon. An official from one of these anti-gay marriage groups was a guest on NPR and actually the gall to claim it was an issue of protecting "religious liberties." I guess the concept of "your rights end where another's begin" never occured to the woman or her group. But it was okay! She also claimed to have the Knights of Columbus on her side. That means something... I guess.

Bonus I forgot to mention: an actual legal expert made clear that California was prepared to challenge the passage of such a law before the Supreme Court. Meaning, if they won, the actions of these "fundie" groups could essentially backfire and allow same-sex marriage on a national scale - much as what was required in the 60s to overturn bans on interracial unions.

I'm no scholar of American law. Is this even legal? How would the federal constitution work with this proposed amendment to the state constitution - is it permissible?

StreetlightInTheGhetto: /would've rather played Wii wtih the boys in the basement

There's a gay pedophile joke to be made there, but I just can't seem to get it out of your basement where you've been playing with a boy's Wii.

If you want to see something disturbing check out the Campaign for Children and Families site. Link

starsrift: I'm no scholar of American law. Is this even legal? How would the federal constitution work with this proposed amendment to the state constitution - is it permissible?

A Constitutional amendment that says (X) will override any lower law saying NOT(X). The hierarchy is:
US Constitution -> National laws -> State constitution -> State laws -> Local ordinances.

Under the constitution, banning gay marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection right, but right now the Supreme Court is excessively politicized and probably wouldn't give a shiat about that and let the state get away with banning it.

rcain: And all this time I thought it was a Legal Institution based on giving a woman everything a man had in this world. Is there really more to it than that?

I figured it had evolved to a point where it was about people who loved each other wanting to make a rock solid show of the commitment between them, the sort of commitment that can only lead to divorce court in 3 to 5 years.

The government shouldn't allow people to baptize their babies because it goes against my beliefs. Sounds stupid, right? Intolerant, ignorant and bigoted. It's the same mindset as those who would punish non-Muslims for depicting Mohammad.

Time for an oldie but a goodie:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Thank-you.


/Original source: Every other page on the internet
//Links pop, go to corresponding bible verses

starsrift: I'm no scholar of American law. Is this even legal? How would the federal constitution work with this proposed amendment to the state constitution - is it permissible?

There is no issue. The CA Supreme court decided that the California constitution gives people the right to marry people of the same sex. Therefore, an amendment to the CA constitution could remove such privilege.

There is no federal issue with the matter at hand (well, not in the defined legal framework of the case)

You know what we should do with the gays lets round em up and put them in camps like Hitler did to the jews! That'll show em. Marriage not yours.

Imagine how this would go over internationally with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its a win win.

The best constitutional amendments are those that affirm rights, not deny them. Dicks.

/penis

WFern: but I heard the most ludicrous thing this afternoon. An official from one of these anti-gay marriage groups was a guest on NPR and actually the gall to claim it was an issue of protecting "religious liberties." I guess the concept of "your rights end where another's begin" never occured to the woman or her group. But it was okay! She also claimed to have the Knights of Columbus on her side.

Heard that as well. She was trying to falsely claim that religious institutions would be forced under the new ruling to marry people they didn't want to. Of course that's a boldfaced lie, since the CA Supreme Court made it explicitly clear that no such actions were required. I'm surprised the NPR-ATC host did not correct/expose her on this.

WFern: WFern: I didn't think it could get much worse as far stupidity was concerned, but I heard the most ludicrous thing this afternoon. An official from one of these anti-gay marriage groups was a guest on NPR and actually the gall to claim it was an issue of protecting "religious liberties." I guess the concept of "your rights end where another's begin" never occured to the woman or her group. But it was okay! She also claimed to have the Knights of Columbus on her side. That means something... I guess.

Bonus I forgot to mention: an actual legal expert made clear that California was prepared to challenge the passage of such a law before the Supreme Court. Meaning, if they won, the actions of these "fundie" groups could essentially backfire and allow same-sex marriage on a national scale - much as what was required in the 60s to overturn bans on interracial unions.


I'd love to see that backfire and have it go nationwide. :D


/I know I know, I'm Canadian, we haven't gone to hell yet, blah blah.

torch: Tradition?? The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old. Unless they're talking about the other other tradition.

To be fair, that's something like 400 years older than the laws of the US, and 500 years older than the laws of CA, so in context the word is probably appropriate.

//600 years is a damned long time. That's longer than most civilizations last, I think you can call something traditional if it's been around in an official capacity for 30 generations.

Now I have a question for more constitutional law knowledgeable farkers. What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with? I know this is talking about the California state constitution and that, in the end, it's trumped by the US Constitution if a conflict arises but there have been rumblings of amending the US Constitution with this crap.

Besides sanity and numbers what prevents an amendment that declares all the rights granted in the constitution apply only to humans and humans are defined as white not black or hispanic or asian, etc? Or how about an amendment that guts the establishment clause and declares a national religion?

shubai33: What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

SCOTUS is the last line of defense.

wyltoknow
Heh, I did a final paper in history about the history of marriage.

I'd like to read it...

shubai33: What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

Revolution.

If gays are allowed to marry, it will be incontrovertible proof that liberals hate them. Haven't the homos suffered enough? And does this joke ever get old? (Yes?)

But serious, people. The entirety of Western civilization as we know it, the lone bright candle in an otherwise benighted world, will be extinguished forever if we allow Adam and Steve, not just Adam and Eve, to marry. And try the veal.

shubai33
Now I have a question for more constitutional law knowledgeable farkers. What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

poor marketing skills.

torch: The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old.

600? Try 40. The current, federally accepted view of marriage didn't come into existance until 1967.

mediaho: shubai33: What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

SCOTUS is the last line of defense.

The Supremes cannot rule a ratified amendment is unconstitutional.

mediaho: shubai33: What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

SCOTUS is the last line of defense.

Right but can an amendment be declared unconstitutional or is the fact that it is an amendment mean that SCOTUS now has to abide by it in all their future rulings as it is now an official part of the constitution (essentially making it untouchable by them)? This is what I'm unclear on.

shubai33:

What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with?

Numbers. It would require 2/3's of both the House and Senate, as well as ratification by a majority of the states to get an amendment passed. Not even during the peak time for these so-called conservatives did they have anywhere near the kind of support that would have been required for an anti-gay marriage amendment. Politicians know that this is going to turn out badly for them, and they don't want to be viewed as the next Jim Crow when it comes time to put this little episode into the history books.

TheCid: starsrift: I'm no scholar of American law. Is this even legal? How would the federal constitution work with this proposed amendment to the state constitution - is it permissible?

Under the constitution, banning gay marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection right, but right now the Supreme Court is excessively politicized and probably wouldn't give a shiat about that and let the state get away with banning it.

That's what I thou--

nmathew01: There is no issue. The CA Supreme court decided that the California constitution gives people the right to marry people of the same sex. Therefore, an amendment to the CA constitution could remove such privilege.

There is no federal issue with the matter at hand (well, not in the defined legal framework of the case)

I guess I'm not the only one confused, here. :) Is this removing the privilege, or a legal redefinition of marriage to specifically exclude those of non-hetero sexuality?



euge: You know what we should do with the gays lets round em up and put them in camps like Hitler did to the jews! That'll show em. Marriage not yours.

Imagine how this would go over internationally with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its a win win.

You don't need to bring the joos into it, Hitler's orders put the gays in the with joos in the camps.

torch: Tradition?? The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old.

Dude, 600 years doth a tradition make. There are lots of traditions far younger than that. Many even that you hold dear.

shubai33
Right but can an amendment be declared unconstitutional or is the fact that it is an amendment mean that SCOTUS now has to abide by it in all their future rulings as it is now an official part of the constitution (essentially making it untouchable by them)? This is what I'm unclear on.

If it's a part of the constitution, it is (by default) constitutional and the supreme court is bound to uphold it. How they do so relies upon their intepretation of the amendment and the context surrounding it. To declare any section of the constitution "unconstitutional", it must be directly contradicted by a subsequent amendment, like how the 21st (yay, no more prohibition!) applies to the 18th.

shubai33:

Right but can an amendment be declared unconstitutional

No. An amendment to the constitution is constitutional by its very definition. They may hate it, but if it ever gets to that point then the SCOTUS would have to rule in favour of the amendment regardless of how moral or ethically correct it may be.

Alien Robot
Dude, 600 years doth a tradition make. There are lots of traditions far younger than that. Many even that you hold dear.

diamonds, wedding rings, DeBeers marketing ad, 1947. (I think)

Republicans have won elections in the past pushing these crap initiatives onto ballots.

DrBenway: Republicans have won elections in the past pushing these crap initiatives onto ballots.

There has been some discussion as to whether this court decision has effectively handed California's electoral votes to McCain in November.

shubai33: Right but can an amendment be declared unconstitutional or is the fact that it is an amendment mean that SCOTUS now has to abide by it in all their future rulings as it is now an official part of the constitution (essentially making it untouchable by them)? This is what I'm unclear on.

Brown Jenkems is right. An amendment would have to be repealed with another amendment. I highly doubt a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will ever be seriously considered. It's just false election year promises that get the fundies out to vote and then you don't hear about it until next election. I have no idea why the fundies keep falling for this shiat. They're still waiting for Roe v. Wade to be overturned which, of course, it never will. If that happened, politicians would lose that valuable carrot they dangle in front of the faithful on even numbered years.

shubai33: Now I have a question for more constitutional law knowledgeable farkers. What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with? I know this is talking about the California state constitution and that, in the end, it's trumped by the US Constitution if a conflict arises but there have been rumblings of amending the US Constitution with this crap.

Besides sanity and numbers what prevents an amendment that declares all the rights granted in the constitution apply only to humans and humans are defined as white not black or hispanic or asian, etc? Or how about an amendment that guts the establishment clause and declares a national religion?

Nothing other than the much higher burden than a simple majority for passing a constitutional amendment (2/3 of Congress & 3/4 of states) - it's hard to get a 2/3 majority of Congress for most things that are controversial enough to require an amendment, and 3/4 of states is an even more difficult barrier

The truth is that it's the very nature of any kind of democratic/representative government - at some point, a policy opinion held by the vast majority of people can become law regardless of how unfair a small minority of people feel it is, and the balance lies in how large you want to make that majority before it has the power to make such decisions

What better way to protect American's freedoms than by discriminating against a large amount of people?

shubai33: Right but can an amendment be declared unconstitutional or is the fact that it is an amendment mean that SCOTUS now has to abide by it in all their future rulings as it is now an official part of the constitution (essentially making it untouchable by them)? This is what I'm unclear on.

And amendment to the California state constitution can be held unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. An amendment to the US constitution is constitutional by its very nature and is not subject to a constitutionality review by the SCOTUS. However, they can ignore it by distorting its meaning to 180 degrees opposite what it says or intended as they did with the 27th Amendment.

muck4doo: Who cares about this shiat?

Well, a lot of Republicans, for one. And gay people for another, because it'd be kind of nice to be considered equal to straight couples.

shubai33: Now I have a question for more constitutional law knowledgeable farkers. What prevents a tyranny of the majority from amending the constitution with any old bigoted idea they can come up with? I know this is talking about the California state constitution and that, in the end, it's trumped by the US Constitution if a conflict arises but there have been rumblings of amending the US Constitution with this crap.

Besides sanity and numbers what prevents an amendment that declares all the rights granted in the constitution apply only to humans and humans are defined as white not black or hispanic or asian, etc? Or how about an amendment that guts the establishment clause and declares a national religion?

The sheer numbers required for it on a national and state level. Remember, it's not just a supermajority of congress, it's the states as well. There's also that pesky second amendment...

mediaho: I highly doubt a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will ever be seriously considered.

The amendment talk going around is talk of getting an amendment to the Califonia state constitution proposed and on the ballot, not an amendment to the federal constitution.

Murkanen: shubai33:

Right but can an amendment be declared unconstitutional

No. An amendment to the constitution is constitutional by its very definition. They may hate it, but if it ever gets to that point then the SCOTUS would have to rule in favour of the amendment regardless of how moral or ethically correct it may be.

Is that always true? If a new amendment, in some way, contradicts one existing?

For example, I'm an Oregonian. We have a provision in our constitution which essentially states that no right may be provided or denied unequally. Yet, in '04, the voters approved of an amendment that now bans marriage by gay couples. It's yet to be challenged in the courts, but I can't imagine they remotely jive with one another.

starsrift:

Is this removing the privilege, or a legal redefinition of marriage to specifically exclude those of non-hetero sexuality?

It was the latter. Prop 22 was made to ban same-sex marriages, which would have been legal prior to that becoming law. The DPA was an attempt to try and create a "seperate but equal" environment that would, theoretically, make challenges to Prop 22 unnecessary (in fark terms: their cunning plan, it wasn't thought all the way through). The court ruled that "seperate but equal" was still discrimination, which made the law unconstitutional under the California state constitution, and tossed Prop 22 out on its ear.

Murkanen:

moral or ethically correct

That should be "immoral or ethically incorrect". My train of thought, I lost it.

NubianzWithAttitude: The best constitutional amendments are those that affirm rights, not deny them. Dicks.

/penis

Nah, CA is a "we love state control" state. This usually translates to a form of socialism that is easily interpreted as 'liberal' by today's arbitrary standards, but it also brought us the good old chinese exclusion act of civil-rights nuking. Big state for censorship, too.

Luckily, as in most states, the dissenters are loud and annoying enough to keep the government form gettign completely out of hand.

Old enough to know better: Jebus, can't we get this damn 'Rapture' thing over with so we can have a little farking relief?!

...yeah, and i really want to commandeer all those "unmanned" cars.

starsrift: You don't need to bring the joos into it, Hitler's orders put the gays in the with joos in the camps.

My friends and I wanted to form a band called "Andre Gide & the Pink Triangles" but we didn't think anyone would get it.

WFern: Is that always true? If a new amendment, in some way, contradicts one existing?

Sure. A lot of high school history books show the Constitution with parts struck out for precisely this reason. Look at the whole "count slaves as 3/5 of a person" thing, the Constitution now bans slavery. That part has been superseded. If a new law *at the same level* contradicts an old law, the new law overrides the old one.

The exception is obviously laws on different tiers- an old federal law beats a new state law in most cases.

WFern: If a new amendment, in some way, contradicts one existing?

If a new amendment contradicts an older one, the newer one takes precedent.

Anagrammer:

There has been some discussion as to whether this court decision has effectively handed California's electoral votes to McCain in November.


Yeah, about two seconds after thinking "Hey, great ruling!" I shifted into "Oh, crap, here we go again" mode.

Murkanen: starsrift:

Is this removing the privilege, or a legal redefinition of marriage to specifically exclude those of non-hetero sexuality?

It was the latter. Prop 22 was made to ban same-sex marriages, which would have been legal prior to that becoming law. The DPA was an attempt to try and create a "seperate but equal" environment that would, theoretically, make challenges to Prop 22 unnecessary (in fark terms: their cunning plan, it wasn't thought all the way through). The court ruled that "seperate but equal" was still discrimination, which made the law unconstitutional under the California state constitution, and tossed Prop 22 out on its ear.

Okay, so that brings me back to my original question. :) Will the federal constitution even permit this proposed amendment to the California state constitution?

Alien Robot:

The amendment talk going around is talk of getting an amendment to the Califonia state constitution proposed and on the ballot, not an amendment to the federal constitution.

I thought shubai was asking about amendments to the US constitution.

WFern:

For example, I'm an Oregonian. We have a provision in our constitution which essentially states that no right may be provided or denied unequally. Yet, in '04, the voters approved of an amendment that now bans marriage by gay couples. It's yet to be challenged in the courts, but I can't imagine they remotely jive with one another.

New amendments take precedence over the older parts of the constitution, largely due to relevance within the eyes of the law.

starsrift: Okay, so that brings me back to my original question. :) Will the federal constitution even permit this proposed amendment to the California state constitution?

Considering that there are already 26 states with state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, I think a California amendment for the same would also be quite safe.

Murkanen: I thought shubai was asking about amendments to the US constitution.

There's no serious talk of proposing an federal constitional amendment vis-à-vis gay marriage, but I guarantee that there will be a major effort to get a proposal on the ballot in California to amend the California state constitution.

And 14 year olds are getting Pre Nups with future boyfriends. I am just not going to have that headache this weekend. It's not a matter of "get off my lawn" but more of "mow it, ya little bastid".

starsrift:

Will the federal constitution even permit this proposed amendment to the California state constitution?

This is a slightly tricky question. Due to past rulings in regards to these matters I'd have to say no, however, ideologues on the court would more than likely vote in favour of the new ban due to their own deep felt beliefs on the matter. That's one of the faults of having lifetime appointments, prejuidices from 40+ years ago can still rear their ugly head on decisions that should be pretty clear cut.

Alien Robot: starsrift: Okay, so that brings me back to my original question. :) Will the federal constitution even permit this proposed amendment to the California state constitution?

Considering that there are already 26 states with state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, I think a California amendment for the same would also be quite safe.

Murkanen: This is a slightly tricky question. Due to past rulings in regards to these matters I'd have to say no, however, ideologues on the court would more than likely vote in favour of the new ban due to their own deep felt beliefs on the matter. That's one of the faults of having lifetime appointments, prejuidices from 40+ years ago can still rear their ugly head on decisions that should be pretty clear cut.

Oh, ah. I see. Thanks!

starsrift: Okay, so that brings me back to my original question. :) Will the federal constitution even permit this proposed amendment to the California state constitution?

See my answer. Technically, gay marriage is a constitutional right now due to the equal protection rights; and arguably under the 9th and 10th amendments. Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court doesn't seem very interested in individual rights.

Alien Robot: I guarantee that there will be a major effort to get a proposal on the ballot in California to amend the California state constitution.

I'm sure, but somehow I doubt that it will manage to pass under the current political climate. If it had been done under the same window as when Prop 22 was passed it would have made it, but the winds on this issue have been steadily blowing public opinion towards honouring the rights of same-sex couples over the past 8 years. Even in Massachussettes they had a timeframe of six months to fix the loophole that permitted same-sex marriage, and instead of bothering to fix it they let the deadline pass instead.

Murkanen:

That's one of the faults of having lifetime appointments, prejuidices from 40+ years ago can still rear their ugly head on decisions that should be pretty clear cut.

To present an example of what I mean, Plessy v. Ferguson was one such decision driven by personal prejudices instead of constitutional law. They upheld "seperate but equal" laws despite the fact that they were a pretty blatent violation of the equal protection clause.

chairman_mao: Old enough to know better: Jebus, can't we get this damn 'Rapture' thing over with so we can have a little farking relief?!

...yeah, and i really want to commandeer all those "unmanned" cars.

I think we could handle seven cars on a national level. These screwheads aren't as righteous as they like to believe they are.

The courts can declare a state constitutional article or amendment unconstitutional if it conflicts with an earlier constitutional feature (either state or federal) that does not specifically repeal that prior feature.

Thus, for a new California constitutional amendment to override this ruling, it would have to state that, at least for this purpose, the California article regarding equal protection under the law is repealed.

The California constitution is much easier to amend than the federal one; it can be done in the legislature or by ballot proposition. However, any such amendment can't override the federal constitution.

Anagrammer: There has been some discussion as to whether this court decision has effectively handed California's electoral votes to McCain in November.

Let me put an end to that discussion. No way in Hell will CA votes red November. Lots of reasons, but the most pertinent is that Obama opposes gay marriage (although he supports civil unions that pretty closely approximate marriage). He will probably also oppose the Amendment, but can easily say "that is a matter for the state and people of California to decide."

Also, McCain voted against the 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, so he's in no position to make an issue out of this. The two are basically the same on this: it's up to the states.

This won't make a shiat of difference November

If the light of Western civilization is not extinguished (and it shouldn't be because we're so damn rich and powerful akin to Rome in 117 AD), won't future generations look back and say "WTF?"

Seriously, Salem Witch Trials in 1640 or U.S. policy towards homos in 2008? They are both pretty damn embarrassing to my great-great grandchildren anyway you cut it.

/But whatever because I have to work on Monday

zimbach:

The California constitution is much easier to amend than the federal one; it can be done in the legislature or by ballot proposition. However, any such amendment can't override the federal constitution.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if the folks vote on this amendment, only to find out that the legislature and governor had signed the previous bill amending it to specifically recognize those same marriages. It has all of 0.0% chance of happening, but it'd be damn amusing to watch their heads asplode.

Johnny Lingo unavailable for comment.

Lionel Mandrake: Lots of reasons, but the most pertinent is that Obama opposes gay marriage (although he supports civil unions that pretty closely approximate marriage).

This is one of the things I don't like about Obama. However, he had the good sense to frame his current opposition to it in a manner that would empower younger voters. When asked about it during his Hardball interview he said he opposed it, but that it was an issue that would be resolved by 'your generation' (referring to the college students in attendance, essentially the 30 and below crowd).

zimbach: The courts can declare a state constitutional article or amendment unconstitutional if it conflicts with an earlier constitutional feature (either state or federal) that does not specifically repeal that prior feature.

No. The newest one takes precedence.

Thus, for a new California constitutional amendment to override this ruling, it would have to state that, at least for this purpose, the California article regarding equal protection under the law is repealed.

Again, no. Many amendments modify previous amendments without specific reference to them.

Old enough to know better: Jebus, can't we get this damn 'Rapture' thing over with so we can have a little farking relief?!

The Rapture already happened a few years back. It turned out that all of the people that were absolutely sure they were going to be taken up were wrong.

Murkanen: This is one of the things I don't like about Obama. However, he had the good sense to frame his current opposition to it in a manner that would empower younger voters. When asked about it during his Hardball interview he said he opposed it, but that it was an issue that would be resolved by 'your generation' (referring to the college students in attendance, essentially the 30 and below crowd).

Yup...sounds to me like he doesn't really oppose gay marriage, but isn't going to stake his shot at the White House on an issue that Americans aren't ready for...yet.

Lionel Mandrake: Murkanen: This is one of the things I don't like about Obama. However, he had the good sense to frame his current opposition to it in a manner that would empower younger voters. When asked about it during his Hardball interview he said he opposed it, but that it was an issue that would be resolved by 'your generation' (referring to the college students in attendance, essentially the 30 and below crowd).

Yup...sounds to me like he doesn't really oppose gay marriage, but isn't going to stake his shot at the White House on an issue that Americans aren't ready for...yet.

Either that, or he thinks of it as a second-term issue.

phlegmmo: No word on how many cows will be legally required per wife bought

Arguments have already been herd.

Remember in the afterlife a demon repeats each pun you've ever told while kicking you in the nads.

torch: Tradition?? The thing these dorks call "Traditional" is only about 600 years old. Unless they're talking about the other other tradition.

That's pretty charitable. Try ca. 1950 'nuclear family' propoganda.

Separation of church and state biatches.

Also, it's hard to believe that the Christians, who make up like 80% of the population of the US, are so oppressed when people who aren't them follow the cultural tradition that they defined. People who make up (in an optimistic estimate) 10% of the population, and most of whom are actually of the same religious background.

Don't they have better things to do? There are 4.9 billion godless heathens out there to witness to!

Or they could actually follow the example of Jesus Christ and work on helping the poor, sick, and downtrodden. Or re-read the bit in the Sermon on the Mount on judging not, lest ye be judged.

Well this doesn't make any sense.
Conservatives are mostly gay, they should be all for this.
Source:
Link (new window)

I wish the government would realize it has no business in the realms of "marriage" or "sanctity"--especially the latter.

Civil unions--contracts between two citizens--should be available to all adult citizens. Marriage should be a function of the church, which can deny anyone the church sees fit to deny.

berylman: If you want to see something disturbing check out the Campaign for Children and Families site. Link(p)

Finally went to check it out...some hate-filled dude, these "Christians"

This arrogant judicial activism took 121 pages of contorted logic to explain and is no surprise coming from this San Francisco-based court. By bowing down to homosexual activists and the rebel city of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court has exchanged the rule of law for the rule of unbridled power to destroy all that is good and sacred.

Yeah, no surprise that this "rebel" SAN FRANSICKO court is out to destroy "all that is good and sacred," after all it's almost entirely made up of Republican appointees - and we all know how pro-gay the GOP is:

The California Supreme Court justices voting to create homosexual “marriages”:

Ron George – appointed by Pete Wilson (Republican)
Kathyn Werdegar – appointed by Pete Wilson (Republican)
Joyce Kennard – appointed by George Deukmejian (Republican)
Carlos Moreno – appointed by Gray Davis (Democrat)

Obviously, there is a conspiracy in the Republican party to destroy traditional marriage!!!!1!!

i has an internet: That's pretty charitable. Try ca. 1950 'nuclear family' propoganda.

There were gay marriages before 1950? Name a famous gay couple who were married prior to 1950. In fact, is there any country where gay marriage was legal in the past? Even the ancient Greeks as open as they were towards homosexual relationships didn't recognize the concept of same-sex marriage.

Murkanen: Lionel Mandrake: Lots of reasons, but the most pertinent is that Obama opposes gay marriage (although he supports civil unions that pretty closely approximate marriage).

This is one of the things I don't like about Obama. However, he had the good sense to frame his current opposition to it in a manner that would empower younger voters. When asked about it during his Hardball interview he said he opposed it, but that it was an issue that would be resolved by 'your generation' (referring to the college students in attendance, essentially the 30 and below crowd).

Well, one he is Christian, so that could be it. OR, it could be that if he said he was for gay marriage, he would be unelectable. People forget that many conservative voters look at one or two issues and pick a candidate. Thus, all the Republicans would have to do is advertise that he is for gay marriage and he most likely would not win. That's basically how Bush got reelected in in 2004 and also why many states have bans against gay marriage now. Sadly, rights for gays is not something a lot of the country wants- even among liberals. (Fark excluded).

Now personally, I'd like to see civil unions and marriages exist for all people, straight for gay.
Civil unions would be pre-kids, less serious, less financial commitment (you don't get alimony payments), less tax breaks, easier to break, still binds insurance though, etc...
Marriage would be when you produce a child or adopt- much, much harder to break, must also have consent of child to break, there are financial penalties for breaking (as in, you are severely taxed until the child turns 21, with a rate greater than 50%), the child can initiate the divorce (my parents fought so much that I wished they would, but my mom stayed in it for the money), you get great tax breaks for keeping the marriage alive, etc... (after the kid turns 18 the marriage reverts to civil union)

Civil unions would be a great name for the way people actually treat marriage now these days- like a relationship commitment link to each other's facebook profiles.

However, marriage should be treated special- for all those actual loving couples gay or straight- who are capable of actually caring for their children.

bobbette: Also, it's hard to believe that the Christians, who make up like 80% of the population of the US, are so oppressed when people who aren't them follow the cultural tradition that they defined.

The concept of opposite-sex marriage pre-dates Christianity and exists in all non-Christian countries. It's hardly unique to Christianity.

sloppy shoes: Interesting, but still infringes upon the rights of the impotent and those who don't wish to have children.

Murkanen: Lionel Mandrake: Lots of reasons, but the most pertinent is that Obama opposes gay marriage (although he supports civil unions that pretty closely approximate marriage).

This is one of the things I don't like about Obama. However, he had the good sense to frame his current opposition to it in a manner that would empower younger voters.

I initially didn't like that about him either. However, I came to terms with the fact that, sadly, he would lose a chunk of his Christian voters if he came out blatantly in support of it. He may, on a personal level, approve of the idea himself and is just weary of the political aspect. He can do more to support it once he gets in office.

Gawdzila: He can do more to support it once he gets in office.

By doing what? The President has no power over marriage in the United States. That's wholly a state function. And even if you want to make it a federal issue, what do you want the Executive Branch to do?

Occam's Chainsaw: sloppy shoes: Interesting, but still infringes upon the rights of the impotent and those who don't wish to have children.

The impotent can adopt- at least last time I checked. (maybe the fundies have gone crazy- and I say fundies because i actually know more good Christians than I know crazy fundies, fundies are usually just louder).

As for those who don't want to have kids, they can have their civil union. However, they don't get the extra federal and state tax breaks that would be given to the married.

It's no different than the current laws that give tax breaks to those that have kids- last time I checked there is no equal protection for tax breaks.

Basically, this system would make it harder for parents to be irresponsible. Choosing to have a child should not be as easy or as fun as sex makes it out to be. I'm all for people symbolically defining their relationship and the state giving them benefits for that- however, leave the kids out of it if you can't be an adult.

*ahem*

Dear Christians -


Separation of church and state.


Thank you.

- the rest of the thinking world.

2wolves
new wife every third child as she dies in childbirth?

Where the fark do you live that one in three women die in childbirth? The land of madeupfactspulledoutofmyassia?

Murkanen
No. An amendment to the constitution is constitutional by its very definition. They may hate it, but if it ever gets to that point then the SCOTUS would have to rule in favour of the amendment regardless of how moral or ethically correct it may be.


Alien Robot
An amendment to the US constitution is constitutional by its very nature and is not subject to a constitutionality review by the SCOTUS.

Brown Jenkems: The Supremes cannot rule a ratified amendment is unconstitutional.

An Amendment to the Constitution can be found unconstitutional, easily so if it violates a right guaranteed in earlier clauses of the Constitution. Rights are not granted by the government, and the Constitution delineates a number of rights "retained by the people". As such Congress does not have authority to remove these rights. In a nutshell, they didn't give them to you, and they can't take them away. They can try, but the effort itself is then unconstitutional. And as much as some people will hate the source, Judge Andrew Nepolitano did a really good analysis of this. Not that I can quote it, but along the lines of any amendment has to be inherently reconcilable to the rest of the Constitution. If it contradicts an earlier part of the Constitution it must specifically repeal those earlier parts to avoid being unconstitutional. Look at the language of the 21st. The first thing it says is "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

So given the choice between Farkers opinions, and what a state Supreme Court Judge has to say on the matter, I'd advise listening to the Judge.

Alien Robot:

And even if you want to make it a federal issue, what do you want the Executive Branch to do?

Sign it when it makes it out of Congress.

Alien Robot: By doing what? The President has no power over marriage in the United States. That's wholly a state function. And even if you want to make it a federal issue, what do you want the Executive Branch to do?

Well then it is really a moot point whether he likes gay marriage or not, I suppose. At least we know that he won't support a constitutional amendment against it. Many people already consider the "equal protection" clause a good support for it.

P.S. -

Can someone please explain to me, in ONLY legal terms, how gay marriage can adversely affect this nation?

Because, all the hub-bub seems to be coming from religious asshats making shiat up.

Seriously, I really want to know.

California voters already passed a law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman and gave homosexuals domestic partnerships that gave the same privilege as marriage. This law was overturned by the California Supreme Court. Now an amendment to the California state constitution will likely overturn this decision assuming it gets on the ballot for November (and it will).

The citizens of California and much of the nation do not want homosexuals to have the right to marry. I tend to agree with this so long as domestic partnerships are provided to homosexuals that provide the same rights achieved in marriage. By courts stepping in ahead of changing views, it is creating a backlash in many areas that is actually delaying the acceptance of homosexual rights. Of course the same excuse was used to justify delaying civil rights actions for minorities in the 1950s and beyond. However, on some level, the signifcant restrictions that mandated the civil rights movement are simply lacking in the homosexual rights issues today, especially in California. The domestic partnership law that was ruled unacceptable by the California Supreme court provided the same privleges seen in marriage and simply did not use the title marriage. It seems baffling to many that this was deemed insufficient.

My worry is with the California Supreme Court decision, it seemingly opens the door to polygamist marriage since the decision rests on the individuals freedom to select members of their family unit. If homosexual members can choose their partners, why can't individuals form larger family groupings? While in theory, I don't have issues with polygamists, the problem lies in the practice which we often see associated with abuse and powerful individuals exploiting the weak. That is not to say you don't see similar issues in singular marriage, but polygamists appears to have a much larger percentage with potential problems in the relationship compared to the tiny minority engaging in that grouping.

Murkanen: Sign it when it makes it out of Congress.